[NOTE: This is a direct translation from Italian using atla-vista, please excuse the English.]

From the gamblings we learn to win
23 past December the prestigious British scientific review Natures published an article of a page that has interested and intrigued biologi, mathematicians, logical and statistical. The author is an Australian engineer, Derek Abbott, that he has illustrated therefore said paradox of Parrondo. Costui - the prof. Juan Manuel Rodriguez Parrondo - he is a physicist of the university of Madrid and has shown like can be gained with emergency participating to two gamblings iniqui (in everyone of which the probability us sfavorisce). Firm all: applications of this theory to the games offers from the casinos and, much less, to Lotto and Superenalotto are not previewed - irrimediabilmente iniqui. The Spanish physicist has escogitato this application of its theories to the competitive games in order to illustrate the methods of its searches on the transport of proteine within the cells, on sure peculiarities of the browniano motion of molecules of a fluid or a gas and on sure problems of thermodynamics. Juan Parrondo describes two gamblings based on the launch of coins. To head or cross, if the coins are balanced (that is the game are honest) the probability to win are 50%. Instead in the game To di Parrondo, we bet that head comes, but the currency is unbalanced: in average it falls on single head 495 times on 1000. Therefore, playing to the game To, in the long run we lose sure. In the game B we bet equally on head, but we use 2 coins (which we assign numbers 2 and 3). The currency 2 us sfavorisce a lot: it once gives to single head 50 times on 1000 (on 20). Currency 3 - finally - favors, gives to head 700 times to us on 1000. Other rule of the game B is that we aim at the currency 2 solos if we have in pocket an exactly divisible number of coins for 3. If this number is not divisible for 3, uses currency 3. Also to the game B in the long run one gets lost. In fact the probability to win is 1/3 (the percentage of the times that we use currency 2 that is) multiplied 0.05 (twentieth) that it gives 0.01666... more 2/3 multiplied for 0.7 that are worth 0.46666... The sum of the 2 probabilities is worth 0.48333: less of 50%. We conclude that does not convene to us to play neither to the game To, neither to the game B. the discovery of Parrondo is strabiliante: if we play 2 times to the game To and 2 times to the game B and we continue therefore - or we choose every time to case some time To and some time B, instead losing, we win. Much more to along we play, much more we win. Parrondo has demonstrated to this its conclusion resorting to reasonings rather sophisticated mathematicians - and not them bringing back. Also it has simulated on computer several sequences very 50.000 played and has confirmed this amazing result that seems to brutally contradict our common sense and our intuition. In order to explain as this probabilistica analysis finds a formal parallel in thermodynamics experiences, we would have to go still more on the difficult one. It is not sure possible farlo within the space of the 4000 struck that me it has been assigned. You take, therefore (for faith), how much follows as a similitudine - even if is something more: it is a faithful model. The situation of the two gamblings is formally identical to that one of a ratchet gear that comes made to turn from a shovel wheel moved from molecules of a gas that goes to us accidentally to blink (a ratchet gear is a dentata slanted tooth wheel like those of one saws, that it can turn in one of the two senses, but not in the opposite sense because there is a harpoon or nottolino that impunta in the socket between two teeth and jams the wheel. In the sense allowed, instead, the harpoon slides on the advanced surface of the teeth and the spin does not hinder). Ideally a structure therefore could take energy from molecules of the gas that goes to case in the just sense and to be insensitive to that they go in opposite sense. From the first moment it could appear that this apparatus would be able of violare According to Principle of the thermodynamics, because would draw energy from a gas to one single temperature, without to take advantage of a jump from warmth to cold. Naturally it is not therefore. Nobody can violare According to Principle. The thin reasonings of Parrondo will serve to explain complex mechanisms of the nature. Arricchiranno only who makes the effort of capirli, not who sight to beccarsi some jackpot.
beginning page
you see also
The image of the world